Divine Rahim Jackson V Commonwealth Of Virginia

Key Facts

Issues

• Jackson filed a motion in limine seeking to exclude social media photographs and Plaza Azteca footage as more prejudicial than probative. The circuit court denied the motion after the Commonwealth agreed to redact gang activity references, and the evidence was admitted to establish Jackson's identity as the shooter and provide motive.
• The appellant contends that the circuit court erred in finding the evidence sufficient to support his convictions for first-degree murder and use of a firearm in the commission of murder. The court examines whether any rational trier of fact could have found the essential elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt based on the evidence presented at trial.
• Jackson contends that the circuit court erred in refusing his proposed jury instruction on justifiable self-defense. The court denied the instruction upon finding there was no evidence Jackson retreated as required by the instruction, and the panel unanimously holds that oral argument is unnecessary because the appeal is wholly without merit.

Holdings

Remedies

Legal Principles

• In Virginia, malicious homicide is second-degree murder by default; it rises to first-degree murder only if the Commonwealth proves the homicide was willful, deliberate, and premeditated. Premeditated murder requires: (1) a killing, (2) a reasoning process antecedent to the act of killing, resulting in formation of a specific intent to kill, and (3) the performance of that act with malicious intent. Malicious intent includes not only anger, hatred and revenge, but every unlawful and unjustified motive. The Commonwealth bears the burden of proving the identity of the accused as the perpetrator beyond a reasonable doubt.
• When reviewing sufficiency of evidence in criminal appeals, the judgment of the trial court is presumed correct and will not be disturbed unless plainly wrong or without evidence to support it. The relevant question is whether any rational trier of fact could have found the essential elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt. The reviewing court is not permitted to substitute its own judgment even if its opinion might differ from the conclusions reached by the finder of fact at trial.
• A circuit court's decision on the admissibility of evidence is reviewed for abuse of discretion. An abuse of discretion occurs when a relevant factor that should have been given significant weight is not considered; when an irrelevant or improper factor is considered and given significant weight; or when all proper factors are considered but the court commits a clear error of judgment. All relevant evidence is admissible unless the probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice. The responsibility for balancing probative value and prejudice rests in the sound discretion of the circuit court.
• Virginia law recognizes two forms of self-defense to criminal acts of violence: self-defense without fault (justifiable self-defense) and self-defense with fault (excusable self-defense). Justifiable homicide occurs where a person without fault in provoking the difficulty kills another under reasonable apprehension of death or great bodily harm. Excusable homicide occurs where the accused, though at fault in provoking the difficulty, retreats as far as possible, announces desire for peace, and kills from apparent necessity to preserve life or avoid great bodily harm. For excusable self-defense, the accused must abandon the fight and retreat as far as safely possible before attempting to repel the attack.

Precedent Name

• Commonwealth v. Cary
• Jackson v. Jackson
• Dandridge v. Commonwealth
• Hammer v. Commonwealth
• Bell v. Commonwealth
• McGowan v. Commonwealth
• Lynn v. Commonwealth
• Fields v. Commonwealth

Cited Statute

• Rule 5A:18
• Rule 5A:27(a)
• Va. R. Evid. 2:401
• Virginia Code
• Va. R. Evid. 2:402(a)
• Va. R. Evid. 2:403(a)(i)

Judge Name

• Judge Lorish
• Judge Frucci
• Judge AtLee

Passage Text

• In short, from the totality of the circumstances presented here, any reasonable fact finder could conclude from Jackson's actions and demeanor before, during, and after the shooting that Jackson maliciously formed a specific intent to kill M.F. before deliberately pointing the gun at his face and pulling the trigger. We thus conclude that the evidence was sufficient to support Jackson's conviction for murder in the first-degree.
• The circuit court admitted two photographs from Jackson's Instagram account depicting Jackson wearing the same distinctive belt buckle and necklace that the shooter wore. The circuit court also admitted the video surveillance from Plaza Azteca showing Jackson fondling Meade's breasts and handling his gun. The photographs were therefore probative of Jackson's identity as the shooter and admissible for that purpose. Moreover, the camera footage from Plaza Azteca proved that Meade was Jackson's girlfriend, thus providing motive for why he angrily confronted M.F. for speaking to her. The footage also showed Jackson in possession of a firearm similar to the one used in the shooting. Any incidental prejudice to Jackson in admitting the pictures and camera footage was outweighed by their probative value, as we find nothing particularly inflammatory about them. Thus, we find no error in the circuit court's ruling on Jackson's motion in limine to exclude the evidence.
• The video footage then captured Jackson striking M.F. twice in the head before pulling his weapon from his pants and pointing it at M.F.'s face. When M.F. tried to move the gun away from his face, Jackson did not retreat or announce his desire for peace; instead, he took one step back, pointed his gun directly at M.F.'s head, and pulled the trigger. Crucially, Jackson admitted that he made no attempt to abandon the fight and retreat as far as he could. Thus, even in the light most favorable to Jackson, the evidence does not support his theory of the case that he acted in self-defense.